H. Kobryn

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 25, 1985

Harry Freedman

OLRB0 cases1984–2001

Pre-hearing representation vote directed for union certification with amended bargaining unit exclusions.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The Board found that not less than 35% of the employees in the voting constituency were members of the applicant.

The Board amended the parties' agreed-upon voting constituency description to replace 'persons covered by subsisting collective agreements' with 'employees in bargaining units for which any trade union held bargaining rights as of January 3, 1985' to avoid ambiguity.

A representation vote was directed.

Ontario Public Services Employees Union v. Niagara South Board of Education, 1985 CanLII 879

N. B. Satterfield

J. P. Wilson

OLRB0 cases1984–1987

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 21, 1984

Union certification granted; Board rejects argument that certification violates Charter mobility rights.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for plumbers and steamfitters employed by the respondent in the construction industry.

The respondent consented to the application being disposed of without a hearing but argued that certification would violate his mobility rights under section 6(2)(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by impairing his ability to gain a livelihood.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rejected the Charter argument, finding that the Labour Relations Act is a law of general application that does not discriminate based on province of residence, and therefore falls within the limitation in section 6(3)(b) of the Charter.

Finding that the applicant had the requisite membership support, the Board issued certificates for the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector and all other sectors in the appropriate geographic area.

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union 666 v. Allan Leslie Stewart, 1984 CanLII 1031

W. G. Donnelly

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

Owen V. Gray

OLRB0 cases1983–1992

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 20, 1984

Union certified without representation vote after incumbent trade union abandoned its bargaining rights.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees at a Swiss Chalet restaurant operated by the respondent.

The incumbent trade union, which previously held bargaining rights, advised the Board that it no longer wished to assert those rights and did not oppose the applicant's certification.

The Board considered whether its usual practice of ordering a representation vote in displacement applications should apply when the incumbent abandons its rights.

Finding no labour relations policy requiring a vote in such circumstances, and noting the applicant had established sufficient membership support, the Board exercised its discretion to certify the applicant without a representation vote.

Canadian Union of Restaurant and Related Employees, Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union, Local 88, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Famz Foods Limited, 1984 CanLII 1014

Lynn H. Harnden

7 cases1982–1990

W. H. Wightman

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 13, 1984

Harry Freedman

OLRB0 cases1984–2001

Union certified without a vote under section 8 due to employer's threats and interference.

The applicant union sought certification under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the employer committed unfair labour practices during an organizing campaign.

The employer laid off the primary union organizer, threatened plant closure, and encouraged the formation of an alternative employee committee.

Although the employer later reinstated the organizer and issued a letter recognizing employee rights, the Board found these remedial steps insufficient to erase the chilling effect of the earlier threats.

The Board concluded the employer violated sections 64 and 66, the true wishes of the employees were unlikely to be ascertained, and the union had adequate support for collective bargaining.

The Board exercised its discretion to certify the union without a vote.

One Board member dissented.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters' and Joiners of America, Local Union 1030 v. Elbertsen Industries Limited, 1984 CanLII 1081

Sheila Mcintyre

4 cases1984–1985

Patrick Mazurek

16 cases1984–2019

Lloyd Bradt

James Hayes

66 cases1980–2000

George Drennan

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 29, 1984

D. H. Blair

OLRB0 cases1984–1986

Corinne F. Murray

OLRB0 cases1982–1985

Tanner Industries declared a successor employer after acquiring equipment and customer contacts from a defunct manufacturer.

The applicant union sought declarations that Tanner Industries was a successor and related employer to Do-Tan Manufacturing Limited under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

Do-Tan had ceased operations and its assets were sold off.

J.R. Tanner, a former principal of Do-Tan, secured customer commitments and transferred equipment to a new company, Tanner Industries, owned by his family.

The Board found that a definable part of Do-Tan's business, including equipment, know-how, and customer contacts, was transferred to Tanner Industries.

The Board declared Tanner Industries a successor employer bound by the collective agreement, but declined to exercise its discretion to make a related employer declaration.

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local Lodge 1740 v. Do-Tan Manufacturing Limited, 1984 CanLII 1117

P. Pelletier

Louisa Davie

4 cases1984–1987

J. T. Saunders

J James Nyman

38 cases1981–2016

J. Armstrong

Gary Kennedy

C. F. Humphrey

4 cases1982–1986

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 3, 1984

Corinne F. Murray

OLRB0 cases1982–1985

Freight forwarder using contracted carriers for international shipping remains under provincial labour relations jurisdiction.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a group of employees of the respondent freight forwarding company.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that its operations fell under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, because it operated an international distribution network extending beyond the province, or alternatively, was an integral part of such an undertaking.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the objection, finding that the respondent's business was entirely contractual and it did not own or operate the physical carriage equipment crossing provincial or national boundaries.

The Board concluded that the respondent was not a federal undertaking nor integral to one, and therefore its labour relations remained subject to provincial jurisdiction.

Canadian Air Line Employees Association v. Emery Air Freight Corporation, 1984 CanLII 1111

Robin B. Cumine

23 cases1981–2015

Douglas J. Wray

69 cases1980–2001

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

I. Stamp

OLRB0 cases1983–1986

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 2, 1984

Board admits hearsay evidence and finds employer violated collective agreement by using non-union workers.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement by using non-union workers to install overhead doors on two projects.

The respondent argued the union's evidence was largely hearsay and inadmissible.

The Board held that under the Labour Relations Act, it has the discretion to admit and rely on hearsay evidence if it is logically probative and the opposing party has a fair opportunity to contradict it.

Relying on the uncontradicted hearsay evidence, the Board found the respondent violated the collective agreement and ordered it to pay damages for the lost man-hours.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union 1669 v. Reimer Overhead Doors Ltd., 1984 CanLII 1099

S. Locke

Norman A. Keith

21 cases1983–2018

Rory F. Egan

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 25, 1984

Religious exemption from union dues granted to employee with sincerely held religious convictions.

The applicant sought an exemption from the union security provisions of a first collective agreement on the grounds of religious conviction or belief under section 47 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant, a Seventh Day Adventist, testified that his religious beliefs prevented him from joining or financially supporting a trade union.

Despite having previously paid union dues at another employer, the Board accepted his explanation that his religious convictions had since re-awakened.

The majority of the Board found the applicant's beliefs to be sincerely held and granted the exemption, directing that an amount equal to union dues be remitted to a mutually agreed charitable organization.

One Board member dissented, questioning the sincerity of the applicant's beliefs.

Dudley S. Burke v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union Local 414, 1984 CanLII 1133

Richard Dickson

R. Balina

Paul S. Jarvis

10 cases1982–2009

M. Pupeza

2 cases1984–1986

J. Popeau

J. J. Nyman

14 cases1980–1992

N. B. Satterfield

J. D. Bell

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 19, 1984

Employer bargaining agency denied intervener status in construction industry certification application.

The applicant trade union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The Mechanical Contractors Association of Ontario (MCAO), the designated employer bargaining agency for the ICI sector, sought to be made a party to the proceedings.

The MCAO argued it had a direct interest because it would become the employer's bargaining agent if certification was granted, and because the threshold issue of whether the work was construction work affected its members.

The Board denied the MCAO's request, finding that an employer bargaining agency's statutory role is limited to collective bargaining and does not grant it a direct legal interest in certification proceedings or the determination of threshold jurisdictional issues.

The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union 628 v. Abitibi-Price Inc., 1984 CanLII 1119

Q. Ceolin

5 cases1984–2001

M. A. Church

9 cases1981–1990

Jeremy Forgie

2 cases1984–1984

D. J. Wray

4 cases1980–1984

D. Henri

Denis Cancian

Dale Chappell

Brian Smeenk

2 cases1984–1989

B. Fishbein

68 cases1980–1996

N. B. Satterfield

I. M. Stamp

OLRB0 cases1982–1988

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 19, 1984

Board allows craft carve-out in displacement application but rejects mixed-trade unit across sectors.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent carpenters employed by the respondents in the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector, as well as all employees in all other sectors in Board Area 16.

The interveners argued that under the Board's displacement policy, the applicant must seek to represent all employees in the existing concrete forming bargaining unit.

The Board held that the requirements of section 144(1) of the Labour Relations Act take precedence over the displacement policy, allowing the applicant to carve out its traditional craft.

However, the Board found that a unit combining carpenters in the ICI sector with all trades in other sectors was inappropriate, as it would require complex sectoral determinations.

The Board determined the appropriate unit under section 144(1) to be carpenters and carpenters' apprentices in both the ICI sector and all other sectors in Board Area 16, while allowing the application to be treated as simultaneously seeking a separate unit for other trades under section 144(3).

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Aero Block and Precast Ltd., 1984 CanLII 1120

Tony Potesio

Robert W Little

J. D. Bell

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 17, 1984

D. E. Franks

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

Application for certification dismissed as the bus terminal operation falls under federal labour relations jurisdiction.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent, who operated a bus terminal exclusively for Greyhound Lines of Canada Limited.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that its operations fell within federal jurisdiction, as Greyhound is an inter-provincial carrier.

The Board found that the respondent's ticketing, parcel handling, and maintenance functions were an integral and essential part of Greyhound's inter-provincial operation.

Consequently, the Board determined that the respondent's labour relations were subject to federal jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

United Steelworkers of America v. Miwy Co. Ltd., 1984 CanLII 1123

W. H. Wightman

R. O. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 9, 1984

Board order filed in Supreme Court for enforcement after employer admitted non-compliance due to insolvency.

The complainant notified the Board that the respondent employer failed to comply with a previous Board order directing payment of compensation.

The Board notified the respondent employer, whose counsel admitted non-compliance due to insolvency.

The Board, satisfied that there was non-compliance, directed that its determination be filed with the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Ontario for enforcement pursuant to section 89(6) of the Labour Relations Act.

William Frederick Burrows v. Lloyd McHugh & Son Limited et al., 1984 CanLII 1009

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

Frank Manoni

3 cases1984–1994

D. Strang

4 cases1982–1997

Douglas J. Wray

69 cases1980–2001

B. W. Binning

11 cases1980–2000

B. J. Howard

B. Carrozzi

N. B. Satterfield

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 31, 1984

Board allows union to amend certification application to exclude ICI sector and refuses to extend terminal date.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of construction labourers.

Following a previous Board decision determining the applicant was an affiliated bargaining agent, the applicant requested to amend its proposed bargaining unit to exclude the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector under section 144(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer and an intervener union opposed the amendment, arguing the applicant could not seek certification outside the ICI sector if it was barred within it.

The Board held that section 144(3) does not restrict the applicant from seeking a non-ICI unit, finding the amended unit appropriate.

The Board also declined the intervener's request to extend the terminal date, finding no prejudice or necessity, and authorized a Board Officer to inquire into the employee lists.

General Workers Union, Local 1030 of the U.B.C. and J. of A. v. Rampart Enterprises Limited, 1984 CanLII 1034

M. Zigler

17 cases1980–2013

Joseph Liberman

Suspended Administratively53 cases1980–2001

Douglas J. Wray

69 cases1980–2001

M. G. Mitchnick

I. M. Stamp

OLRB0 cases1982–1988

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 25, 1984

Board maintains historical practice of describing acoustical and drywalling bargaining units by work performed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for employees engaged in the installation and erection of acoustical and drywall systems.

The respondent employer and an intervener union argued that the Board should revert to its normal practice of describing construction industry bargaining units by specific trades rather than by the work performed, citing a merger between the Lathers' and Carpenters' unions.

The Board declined to modify its long-standing practice of describing bargaining units in the acoustical and drywalling field by the work performed, finding no compelling reason to depart from the established organizational lines.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local 2041 v. J. R. Noel Plastering Ltd., 1984 CanLII 1041

Owen V. Gray

OLRB0 cases1983–1992

J. D. Bell

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 3, 1984

Decertification application dismissed because the applicant was not an employee in the relevant bargaining unit.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the respondent trade union.

The union argued that the applicant lacked status to bring the application because he was not an employee in the bargaining unit.

The Board found that the relevant bargaining unit was limited to employees in Board Area 8, and since the applicant worked in Hamilton and was not part of that unit, he had no status to apply.

The application was dismissed.

Henry Snow v. Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local No. 285 Union, 1984 CanLII 1046

W. J. McNaughton

30 cases1980–2000

Norman L. Jesin

14 cases1983–2003

J. A. Ronson

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 19, 1984

G. Gail Brent

OLRB0 cases1980–1984

Complaint dismissed; no duty to disclose nebulous contracting out plans during collective bargaining.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated the Labour Relations Act by contracting out its sheeting operation without disclosing its intention to do so during collective bargaining.

The Board found that the employer had not made a firm decision to contract out during negotiations, but rather was exploring options to minimize losses from waste material.

The Board concluded there was no duty to disclose unsolicited information about contracting out under these circumstances.

Furthermore, the decision to contract out was motivated by genuine business considerations, not anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed.

Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, Local 1332 v. BCL Canada Inc., 1984 CanLII 967

Linda Rothstein

21 cases1984–2026

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

I. Stamp

OLRB0 cases1983–1986

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 13, 1984

Professional engineering firm directly employing labourers on a project is an employer in the construction industry.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent construction labourers employed by the respondent.

The respondent, a professional engineering firm, argued it was not an employer in the construction industry as it acted merely as an agent for the owner and contracted out 98% of the work.

The Board found that the respondent directly employed two labourers, directed their work, and paid them.

Applying previous jurisprudence, the Board held that an entity need not have construction as its primary business to be an employer in the construction industry, and concluded the respondent met the statutory definition.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 506 v. Carswell & Norton Limited, 1984 CanLII 968

Stanly D. Goldberg

Michael Granat

B. Fishbein

68 cases1980–1996

R. Swenor

OLRB0 cases1984–1985

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 28, 1984

Board finds employer bound by collective agreement after joining employers' organization that negotiated with union.

The applicant union brought an application under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, alleging a sale of business and related employer status between the respondents.

The preliminary issue was whether the respondent, David Yan & Partner of Canada Limited, was bound by a collective agreement with the applicant.

The Board found that the respondent had voluntarily recognized the union by joining the Toronto Construction Association, which subsequently entered into a collective agreement on its behalf.

The Board concluded that the respondent was bound by the current industrial, commercial, and institutional collective agreement and directed the matter to be listed for a continuation of the hearing.

Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen v. David Yan & Partner of Canada Limited, 1984 CanLII 988

Stephen Krashinsky

In Private Practice17 cases1980–1998

Lynn H. Harnden

7 cases1982–1990

Bernard M. Curtis

I. M. Stamp

OLRB0 cases1982–1988

Ian C. Springate

OLRB0 cases1983–1989

H. Kobryn